> He provides actual substantive policy suggestions with evidence to support his claims.

This is untrue. The policy suggestions are all poorly researched and reminded me of the kind of ideas you'd see on a comedy show like Silicon Valley... you know, TV depictions of tech bros coming up with "solutions" for problems that they don't understand.

I'm not saying that they were all laughable, but it was very hit or miss. Yang had some good ideas mixed in with bad ideas, and I think a combination of inexperience, lack of deeper research, and a refusal to listen to experts is what caused all the problems in his policies.

> In fact, NY Times and the NY Daily News spent so much time focusing on bashing Yang that it's literally the reason why Eric Adams of all people ended up being our mayor.

Yang ran a incompetent campaign. He relied far too heavily on internet presence--Twitter, Reddit, etc. I don't know why he thought that was enough. Say what you will about Eric Adams--Adams wasn't in my top 5, and so I didn't vote for him--but Eric Adams knew how to work with the press and he spent far more time hitting the streets during the election than Yang did. Adams was far more in touch with the people in NYC who vote, far more knowledgeable about how the press works, and had experience with NYC politics.

You can complain about "hit pieces", but Yang was out of touch with most voters in NYC, made a series of obvious PR blunders, showed no competence at working with the press, and had nearly zero experience working with NYC politics... Yang didn't even vote in local elections.

Spare me the uneducated "tech bro" commentary that I've heard throughout. It's unoriginal. I'm eager to hear your ranked choices and what policies made so much more sense to you though than Yang's and what Yang's good ideas were.

Yang made PR plunders sure, but it was completely disproportionate. It's odd to me that you can be so complimentary towards Eric Adams though, Brooklyn borough president, a position that's notorious for doing literally nothing. Voting in local elections is important, but I consider living in NYC rather than Fort Lee, NJ to be mayor to be even more important. NYC newspapers certainly didn't care though.

Here's the best example of the muck-raking that I can think of, which I've been thinking about since Michelle Go's murder. Yang talked about the mentally ill, homeless population, the need for enforcement of Kendra's law, psych beds, and the concern of ordinary New Yorkers. The media and voters ran with the soundbites to mean that Yang hates homeless people. Kendra's Law would have saved Michelle Go's life by the way.

Comedy writers make original takes, I’m just some rando on the internet sharing my opinion. Likely it’s gonna be an opinion you heard before.

> I'm eager to hear your ranked choices and what policies made so much more sense to you though than Yang's and what Yang's good ideas were.

Why?

Are you looking for five (5) opportunities to roast different politicians running in the Democratic primary that I think were better qualified for the mayoral position than Yang? No thanks, I don’t see the point. Pick anyone that ran. Chances are, I preferred that person over Yang.

You’re also casting the discussion strictly in terms of policies. Policies are only one of the reasons that I would choose one candidate over another—I disliked Yang for lots of other reasons besides policy.

> Yang made PR plunders sure, but it was completely disproportionate.

It wasn’t just “PR blunders”, he made mistake after mistake, and those mistakes betrayed unfamiliarity with basic stuff that a good NYC mayor should know. He proposed making domestic violence shelters (that already exist), he proposed having the MTA take control of various bridges and tunnels (which are already under its control), he made comments about the conflict in Israel and Palestine (with predictable results). And then when he (predictably) got some bad press, he whined about it like a schoolkid being bullied at recess.

It would be one thing if he actually were a little kid getting picked on by bullies. But he’s an adult, this is politics, and the reason he got picked on so much by the press is because he was a constant source of entertainment—either when he made a basic mistake, or when he whined about how he was being treated by the press. That kind of behavior gets clicks and eyeballs online.

> It's odd to me that you can be so complimentary towards Eric Adams though…

Maybe I was relying too much on subtext. “Say what you will about X” one of the most uncomplimentary ways you can introduce a subject into a discussion. Even though grammatically, it’s a request for you to talk about Eric Adams, it’s not actually a request for you to talk about Eric Adams.

I don’t know if the above explanation is appropriate or welcome to you, but I have started explaining subtext in direct terms, for various reasons.

> Yang talked about the mentally ill, homeless population, the need for enforcement of Kendra's law, psych beds, and the concern of ordinary New Yorkers.

Yeah, among other things, he proposed homeless shelters dedicated to domestic violence victims, which already exist. He talked about a ton of things, but talk isn’t enough. He showed that he lacked basic knowledge about the policies he proposed.